How to decarbonize the grid and electrify everything | John Doerr and Hal Harvey

Take action on climate change at countdown.ted.com.
"The good news is it's now clearly cheaper to save the planet than to ruin it," says engineer and investor John Doerr. "The bad news is: we are fast running out of time." In this conversation with climate policy expert Hal Harvey, the two sustainability leaders discuss why humanity has to act globally, at speed and at scale, to meet the staggering challenge of decarbonizing the global economy (which has only ever increased emissions throughout history) -- and share helpful examples of promising energy solutions from around the world.
This conversation was part of the Countdown Global Launch on 10.10.2020. (Watch the full event here: • [Replay] Watch the Cou... .) Countdown is TED's global initiative to accelerate solutions to the climate crisis. The goal: to build a better future by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, in the race to a zero-carbon world. Get involved at countdown.ted.com/sign-up
Follow Countdown on Twitter: / tedcountdown
Follow Countdown on Instagram: / tedcountdown
Subscribe to our channel: / ted
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy (www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com

[@jared4034]

It's refreshing to listen to a TED talk which brings together subject matter experts for a conversation addressing the specific components of a proposed social or ecological change.

[@phdnk]

That's not a conversation but a paly being acted out with all the lines learned by heart.

[@Larsoff]

@@phdnk This shouldn't be political or conspiracy. They are professionals in their field having a discusuion to improve electrical infrastructure. They know what they're talking about. You might understand the concept better if you are a high skill professional. Give thoughts into it with an open mind

[@christophedobbels8877]

@@phdnk Yet it informed me way more than your comment.

[@vassilpapadak]

@@phdnk Indeed it's a presentation, but the words are powerful

[@hany259]

Right? Something useful, rather than a 20 minute seminar explaining why 8 hours of sleep is healthy.

[@FredAF]

This is the kind of content the world needs. Important matters need to be talked about if we want to make a better world, but we can't forget that just talking about it isn't enough.

[@MANBEARPIG248]

Finally someone talking about the solutions rather than problems

[@tomeryud]

every politician ever: "thats illegal!"

[@Tony-yd1vx]

How are greedy corporations supposed to make big profits?

[@raprice6846]

Thing is solar and wind are cheap because they don’t put out enough energy to “pay” for themselves. However getting this stuff to lower world country’s can boost advancements and energy around any country you want

[@Tony-yd1vx]

@@raprice6846 Wind turbines don't pay for themselves? Why do you say that? The wind farm I worked on made over 35 million a year. They sell the power generated to the local power companies.

[@raprice6846]

@@Tony-yd1vx One turbine produces 6,000 kWh per year, one 7.5 kWh solar panel produces almost 11,000 kWh per year. A domestic midsized 5 kWh turbine can produce ~8,500 kWh per year. It’s the seemingly least efficient one out of the “ renewable and sustainable” resources

[@LeslieDugger]

Love the production style of this talk

[@mxbw]

I'm a big believer in decarbonizing the grid and I find it crazy that nuclear energy wasn't even mentioned once. I live in France and we already have a largely decarbonized grid all the while working on renewables as well. New tech exists in the nuclear field making them extremely safe and much more efficient with waste. Sad that nuclear doesn't get a mention.

[@HubertLR]

"I find it crazy that nuclear energy wasn't even mentioned once" its simply because they live in a politically correct little illusion. Cut off from reality.

[@DirtyPoul]

Rewatch around 3:00. Hal says it used to be expensive to decarbonize the grid. And it was for France. You did it the cheapest way possible back then through nuclear energy. But look at the graph about the price of wind and solar. They're now both far cheaper than nuclear power is because the price of nuclear energy has been on a plateau for the past decade, tending more towards a rise in price than a fall. They didn't mention nuclear energy because nuclear energy is more or less irrelevant when looking to the future because of its poor economics compared to solar and wind in combination with batteries and Power-to-X. These four technologies have moved from basically impossible ten years ago to the cheapest solution now, and they keep getting cheaper. I used to be a huge advocate for nuclear energy, and I still would be if the economics still made sense.

[@mxbw]

@@DirtyPoul Fair enough. I guess a concern I still have is the increasing levels at which we consume energy (which will keep going up despite our efforts) which will require so much more land than a nuclear power plant per Watt hour. Odly enough I find renewables to be unstatable given what they require. Don't get me wrong, we MUST invest in them and develop them to get better (essentially, batteries), but I find it SO unfortunate that new nuclear tech (molten salt reactors, pebbles instead of rods etc.) isn't even part of the general conversation for the years to come.

[@DirtyPoul]

@@mxbw Electricy demand will increase dramatically as electric cars take over. But I don't think space requirement is a problem. The estimates I've seen say about 500 000 sq km if solar power had to power the entire world in 2030. That's less than the size of France. I don't see why that should pose a problem.

[@Tore_Lund]

Why is France reducing their number of reactors? You are the only of the big countries in Western Europe, which has substantial industry and still manages, to have very low footprint electricity? On the other hand, you don't have that much coast line, so alternatively, you'll need to fill the south western France with wind power to make up for it, and French farmers won't like it.

[@martinvasilev6099]

I really want more people to watch this they need it.

[@jacobdu1215]

the interview environment is so fantastic

[@christophedobbels8877]

And finally a discussion with enough space inbetween.

[@Tony-yd1vx]

Thanks

[@evan393]

I like this format where there's a conversation. Since TED talks aren't given on a stage at the moment there's opportunities to diversify and take advantage of new presentation formats.

[@tenzinlegtsok]

Excellent content TED. Please keep making more in depth conversations about climate change like this. It would be great to hear from some scientists, policy makers, and entrepreneurs in the field.

[@mv80401]

So glad I came across this. Had bought the book just prior to a big home renovation (energy retrofit actually: no more gas) and forgot I had it. Now I just have to find it :)

[@leehayward8609]

This is a brilliant video. Hope they do more of these style chats.

[@Noukz37]

Wow, the best "Countdown" video thus far! I could listen to these two gentlemen for hours! Also, shame they didn't mention how broken our agriculture and food production is, and how easy it is to solve. EDIT: Also, I forgot to add that, while living in Shenzhen for almost 5 years, I noticed first hand how quickly their public transport shifted, it was amazing! And bear in mind, we're talking about a city of a 15 million people.

[@mossm717]

It’s great that there are climate policy specialists, these are definitely the people we need to be listening to more when making decisions in government. (From the talk) Looks like the biggest things we need to do are: 1. invest more in renewables to signal companies to scale up production and focus on sustainable energy. 2. Focus on the few individuals who actually have control over the big decisions, the Local elected energy positions 3. Create a definite plan as a country and continually measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.

[@brokkoliomg6103]

it's a great summary but i would still recommend watching the whole thing as it goes deeper into the information you need if you want to get active to change something

[@caitlinpreece9811]

Carbon dioxide is life. Electrify everything means to kill everything. People know so little these days.

[@windywendi]

Me: just opened a bag of potato chips Speaker: Do you know how much Americans spend on potato chips?

[@MichaelLee-nn9fo]

I think you meant half bag of potato chips and half bag of air 😂😂😂😂

[@windywendi]

@@MichaelLee-nn9fo Exactly XD

[@cristyramirez7329]

@@MichaelLee-nn9fo I think you meant half bag of air and half of potato chip crumbles. lol

[@Tony-yd1vx]

@@MichaelLee-nn9foPotato chip bags are not full of air, but of nitrogen gas. This is done to prevent the chips from oxidizing, which is part of what makes them go stale. Oxygen is very reactive, and likes to combine with other molecules whenever it can, causing chemical changes to take place

[@i3_13]

@@Tony-yd1vx ain't air, gas?lol

[@lutaayam]

I just want to say I love the set on the interview

[@RampinRabit]

This is so important. Looking forward to the challenges that lay ahead of us

[@micktrillsun2744]

“more and more efficient cars…” You’re thinking too small. We need more and more efficient transportation systems. We already have automated electric mass transit but very few cities want it. Instead they are all still expanding their oil burning infrastructure, in the form of asphalt roads and the one-person-per-vehicle model, which is a disaster for the environment.

[@Tubes12AX7k]

Walkable, small neighborhoods with zoning for convenience stores and light commerce is really the way to go. This more or less mimics the older neighborhoods in pre-automotive days which used to have a Main street, grocers, shops...etc... within walking distance of people's homes. I'm in the Northeast in the US where you still find older towns from the 1700's and 1800's and they maintain this footprint. Europe and Asia obviously still have a lot of walkable towns. We could return to this in the US by simply changing zoning restrictions a bit. For example, maybe the entrance to every modern neighborhood could be zoned for a convenience store or pharmacy. That would reduce a lot of short distance driving. Some people will want to live in more rural environments, and that's fine. But some rezoning would return us to more common sense walkable towns like we used to have at the turn of the century and earlier.

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

Catenary wires over roads with cars and trucks that have pantographs like electric trains. Can fuel massive cities with nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric, or a bazillion solar panels and windmills.

[@Tony-yd1vx]

Mass transit sucks, it spreads viruses and you're usually surrounded by idiots.

[@MG-ik3wy]

@@Tubes12AX7k and Mick Trillsun… You're thinking too small, or too big. We need to reconnect to nature. David Orr believes that if we do not realize this connection, ecological change will not occur. I agree, we need to think locally, but sourcing locally also. Production must exclude foreign resources; resources not located within the local environment. Not only fossil fuels and natural gas, but everything foreign; plastics, fresh water, technology. Recognizing that our ecological footprint should exist within the bounds of equilibrium, reconciliation with Mother Nature will be achieved. A land-dwelling species as massive as us has never grown to a population even a tenth of ours. Abandoning our technology and integrating ourselves within the struggles that the ''unintelligent'' organism faces every hour constitutes a repair in our nature. The natural world experiences no comfort, no ease in living. Lifting ourselves out of our limited, local ecology dictates our current predicament- climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, etc. Our economic paradigm, telling us that value is in production, must be reconstituted to reflect our myopia. We don't see the harm in modernism when we've paved over the native and created an alien existence.

[@MG-ik3wy]

@@user-nf9xc7ww7m And how much ecological destruction will occur to make room for those bazillion solar panels? Or ocean windmills? Our economic paradigm must shift if we are to make any progress towards solving these wicked problems collectively. For we can solve climate change, but the wake of that solution will create widespread biodiversity loss and pollution, increasing our ecological footprint. Logic dictates that technological innovation can never reconcile us with nature.

[@erikdingeldein3359]

nuclear my dudes

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@vassilpapadak]

Amazing presentation. Everybody should see this. I am sharing

[@lukasbeja1269]

These two guys give me hope in this world. There is nothing better than being reasonable and realistic.

[@humberabdulah4733]

you can use nuclear reactor or thorium to replace coal base power plant

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@dwaynejava]

A very important discussion... one thing not mentioned is that big oil has lots of money to fund politicians to not move to tenewable energy.

[@jammer6524]

BIg oil did a great job selling anti science to make climate change a non problem.

[@kate8160]

I love today’s format!

[@bckelley90]

This video needs more views

[@philipploeffler7779]

I totally agree to the approach that it is vital to convince the most important decision makers/influencers in America. And to pinpoint it down to the number of only 90 commissioners is really fascinating and makes me optimistic that with focus and determination it really can be done!

[@ahmadalajrami4635]

TED , I love you so much, Thank you

[@KLNT_BeastWood]

This sounds dope!!.... I'll be back with my thoughts afterwards lol

[@beachcomber2008]

It's OK to use molten salt nuclear fission reactors to produce hydrogen, because of their low energy cost when used for high-temperature chemical processing. Perhaps it's the only sensible way.

[@hap-hap728]

Really impressive. I like that conversation.

[@sooraj1497]

Can listen to Hal the entire day

[@SajadJalilian]

So what about "Molten salt thorium-based nuclear power" ??!!

[@jeremyg9323]

There are quite a few technologies they didn't address. I was picturing them talking about carbon capture when they turned to car batteries. That said, what they're talking about is policy systems around these techs. That's universal to what we both expected to hear about.

[@Tony-yd1vx]

What about blue energy?

[@vassilpapadak]

It's not the exact how, it's the plan that matters the most

[@jeremyg9323]

@Bryan Rip policy frameworks dont apply to any one technology os the thing. The how isnt going to be lets add more nuclear power, unless your country is outright communist. The how (usually) is an increasing incentivization to find better tech. There is a how, just not in the way you imagine. That being said, its true policy usually is much more restrictive for nuclear power, for very real concerns

[@doritoification]

literally no mention of nuclear. Sigh

[@doritoification]

@Old Soul it can be part of the solution

[@ukrytykrytyk8477]

@Old Soul Look at France or Ontario province in Canada! Nuclear is a solution working there successfully for many decades already! Compare that with the neighboring Germany that is dumping billions of Euros on the renewables with no much improvement in the reduction of emissions.

[@-LightningRod-]

Nuclear is too expensive

[@ukrytykrytyk8477]

@@-LightningRod- Tell French that who has one of the cheapest electricity in Europe from nuclear mostly. Renewables are expensive when you factor in the energy storage necessary for stable power supply and for the night time use.

[@tylerstannard4670]

Yes, I want to work on implementing the new technologies at scale.

[@sunraiii]

In 20 years new generations will be confused about why we sat so far apart from each other

[@kurtfrancisco8768]

this is more like a TV show than a ted talk

[@ozzyfromspace]

About the point he raised praising Shenzhen for creating policy shifts that basically forced taxis to go electric: I watched a DW(?) documentary where taxi drivers complained that they were losing revenue because whenever they had to refuel their vehicles, it was 20 to 30 minutes to recharge, and it adds up over time. The electric vehicle shift actually hurt them economically. My point, as someone that cares deeply about the future of our climate, is that we need to examine our propositions more carefully, because while we certainly have good intentions, this massive shifts could really hurt people, and that awareness is a central barrier to progress. As you might recall, the Trump Administration spend a lot of time undoing Obama-era regulations because they held the position that said policies made it harder for American businesses to thrive. Whether or not that was an accurate assessment is beyond the point. We won't be able to make lasting change if we don't account for the people that could end up on the short end of this massive shift to electric, because if they feel that they will get hurt during the transition, they’ll fight you on every step of the way. And rightly so.

[@amosjsoma]

It's good that you did the research to tell us that the city in China has 18,000 electric buses. I wish you had carried your research a bit further to tell us how many coal fired electrical generating plants they built to charge those buses.

[@bmarquis3500]

Takes a lot of balls to talk about energy for 20 minutes without mentioning nuclear once.

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@MickeyMouse-ef4ez]

"Electrify the grid" Like Tron?

[@GB-uc3ni]

It's a shame that nuclear power isn't being considered by governments of major polluters because of one incident.

[@jjjjj6424]

Sounds safe

[@Nihilistic_Optimist]

There is more than one incident world-wide but perhaps you have specific country in mind.

[@alexcontreras6103]

@@Nihilistic_Optimist yea 2 chernobly and fukashima out of 475 that were running

[@christophergruenwald5054]

Nuclear is the only way we’ll get the electricity we need to power everything without destroying the planet in the process.

[@DirtyPoul]

@**it happens Your comment is filled with misconceptions. 1. Thorium nuclear power is at best an option for research. It doesn't exist as a solution yet, and it's not certain that it will ever become economical to implement it. Relying on such a technology would be ill-advised to say the least. 2. Wind and solar doesn't require much space. Sure, it requires more than nuclear energy, but it's not a problem. It would require about 500 000 sq km using solar panels. That's essentially nothing in the grand scheme of things. How much space did you think it would require? 3. Rooftop solar panels cost about twice as much per kWh produced as utility-scale solar making it a poor option considering that land use is not a significant problem. The reason why nuclear is not a great solution for the future is not because of poor safety, but because of poor economics.

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

Years ago I commissioned an electronics expert to create, populate three 3 layer printed circuit boards, a total of ~500 microwave small pin dual diodes, such that each of the three pins extending from the packages went to the appropriate layer so all the diodes became connected in massive parallel, and encase everything in an aluminum box. He then tested the box for DC power production and found zero power production. I recently realized that I should have chosen zero bias diodes. This means that many people can test the hypothesis that the correct diodes in parallel or parallel series can produce measurable power. Aloha, Charles M Brown lll Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 96754

[@userr_aa]

What a great conversation!

[@ozzyfromspace]

In my home country of Zambia, the median salary is about $10/day (compared to about $92/day here in the US). At $10/day, you're just not thinking about solar power. Most cities in Zambia (even the capital of Lusaka) don't have electricity at least half of the time. Climate action is positively correlated with GDP per capita. This means that in practice, fighting climate change at scale is mostly the role of wealthier countries, as it should be, given that their massive economic output induced this catastrophe in the first place. That's the hard, uncomfortable truth. We're well past the efficacy of individual action. Now this climate crisis has fallen into the hands of well-off countries and innovative companies. Still, nice talk. It just makes the socioeconomic dynamics seem more straightforward that they really are.

[@DirtyPoul]

"At $10/day, you're just not thinking about solar power." On the contrary, that's exactly why you should think very hard about solar power, as it is the cheapest form of electricity generation out there. Even more so if wealthy countries support it financially, as they ought to.

[@ozzyfromspace]

@@DirtyPoul I agree with you that it makes long-term economic sense to go with solar. It is now the cheapest form of energy. All I’m saying is, people don’t spend when they don’t have enough for themselves; that’s austerity. The best way to demonstrate it is by appreciating that Zambians don’t have access to electricity like 50% of the time (daily blackouts are a staple). This hampers stable, economic output, which hurts Zambian citizens. The most reasonable thing to do would be to put up cheap solar, get industry moving, and find that in the long term, citizens are more prosperous despite spending large sums of money on a grid infrastructure project (as a collective). But people hold onto their money REALLY tightly. It’s not the most rational thing to do, but the response makes sense. So, ofc I agree with your point, but I also see how poor people make decisions, and can safely tell you that there are a plethora of unexpected side-arguments you have to scale to make progress happen. Thanks for disagreeing in such a civil way, and best wishes 🙏🏽

[@DirtyPoul]

@@ozzyfromspace I absolutely agree with you here. It sounded to me that you were defending opting for fossil fuels instead of solar because "solar isn't on their minds". I see that I misinterpreted your comment :)

[@DirtyPoul]

@George Mann I'd like an explanation for what "$8000/kw avg output" means, as well as links to sources for your figures. That goes for all your three comments.

[@kenshea741]

Made me remember these lyrics. "What are you, what are you waiting for?"

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

Stutter?

[@miguelmatos3326]

Really interesting video with good information

[@VerenaSatriani]

Have a great day, everyone. Stay calm, blessed and be as awesome as you are.

[@drealexatos3459]

Barely made it through the distancing ceremony. Glad I did tho, interesting conversation.

[@sampadsaha3031]

Only Solar and Wind can't fulfill our requirements. A combination of Solar-Wind-Nuclear-Hydro power will be more sustainable.

[@-LightningRod-]

why cant solarwind supply demands?

[@TheFuturistTom]

I love TED! They inspired my sci-fi/futurist channel!!

[@DaBlondDude]

As a policy approach, this can work. When it comes to individual companies though It occurs to me that $$ is an issue for many; specifically, why would a business invest in replacing current equipment, assuming they can even find the money? Their costs would have to be passed on to their customers so unless they all do it, those who do lose clients to those who don't

[@tonystanley5337]

Transportation is only 2nd if you consider fuel refining and distribution as separate industrial emissions. The combustion engine is probably responsible for nearly 50% on its own. We do not need new batteries, Cobalt isn't scarce, and there are plenty of suitable battery chemistries. Current batteries work just fine for the majority of uses, we have 20 years to develop better batteries for the last 5%. Battery fire risk is much safer than combustion vehicles.

[@ikihaku]

For everyone advocating for nuclear. Unfortunately, nuclear is quite expensive, a lot of money and expertise is required to build, maintain and decommission a nuclear power plant. There are a lot of safety and location requirements, plus it’s a big chunk of generation in one place (up to 3000MW an equivalent of 1000-2000 wind turbines), so a powerful distribution grid is needed.

[@grantzimmerman7704]

Just a question: I looked it up on google and it says that coal runs at 3.2 c/kW/h. I’m interested, can someone explain to me why they’re saying that solar is cheapest when the cost of production is twice that of coal? This is a really interesting subject, great talk!

[@jammer6524]

Where did your numbers come from. The cost of coal-fired energy coming in at $60 to $143 per MWh and natural gas combined cycle coming in at $41 to $74 per MWh. Unsubsidized wind projects costing between $32 and $62 per megawatt-hour and unsubsidized utility-scale solar ranges from $32-$42/MWh.

[@mandeep3.14]

So interesting 🤯

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

"CoAl'S cLeAn, iT's ClEaN !" -Some guy you might've seen on tv

[@magnanimousmantaray8180]

Can we let conversations be conversations, and give prepared talks their appropriate forum?

[@christophedobbels8877]

A discussion allows both parties to say their beliefs. But discussions don't result in anything. I would rather have this where a scientists states their opinion. And others add correlations to it. How does this compare to other subjects? It's genial Well done to TED. Obviously when you get these "prepared" talks, you can steer the way the conversation goes. You can call to vote for a certain party for example.

[@johnsweeney6534]

I was attracted by the chance to listen to John Doerr. He earned his fame in the computing field. Although clearly intelligent he has yet to demonstrate that his abilities transfer to another field. Hal Harvey has written a book on government policies leading to success in producing change. As with John Doerr I am uncertain Hal's skills transfer to the issue of climate change. It was fascinating to me to watch these two giants share ideas. They share ideas borrowed from past successes and methods also borrowed from past successes and other fields of human endeavor. Unfortunately those ideas do not easily transfer to climate change. Hal criticized setting automobile emissions to a fixed limit instead of a yearly increasing percentile reduction. Both approaches lead to success, but Hal dwelt upon examples demonstrating better success using the annual percentile approach. Sadly the underlying science was unknown. Also top automotive engineers felt confident of eventually achieving the fixed goal, but felt ICE vehicles could never extend that success beyond that limit. Politicians live on success, not lofty goals, so the government cautiously selected the fixed goal. Likewise John Doerr wants to use computers and massive databases to model the planet's carbon emissions. Using that database he would identify the sources of carbon dioxide emissions, the costs to recover those emissions, and the probabilities of success. He has taken proven methods to embellish the aura of such incredible goals. Unfortunately he forgot or is not aware of the years of effort and research needed to create proven methods for using wood structures to sequester carbon. Although now a proven fact, it was vociferously doubted by leading environmentalists for many years. We lack the funding and quantity of scientists to identify all the basic facts to be used in John Doerr's massive database of the planet's green house gases.

[@raianetheawesome4279]

Yes, very good idea👏👏

[@noninvasive_rectal_probe8990]

WOW! THAT INTERVIEWER IS LEGIT!!!!!!!!!

[@stevenarrasmith7540]

How do you build a Star Trek future when half the country is in a tribal death cult?

[@elinope4745]

If they will happily let you in and share information with you then are they a cult? If you do not let them in or share information with them, then perhaps you are the cult. The cult is the one doesn't allow outside opinions in, the cult is the one that won't look at evidence and instead stick to authority figures instead of math. I do agree with you on the term "cult" though. I am not a climate change denier.

[@ZesPak]

@@elinope4745 are these guys not openly talking solutions though?

[@JiHottist]

Wtf why did no one send me an invite.

[@danielsayre3385]

Helpful

[@christophergruenwald5054]

Spray foam insulation greatly reduces energy use of homes and building for heating and cooling. More than 50%. And that’s forever, not just once.

[@brouiller]

"I'm at heart a Capitalist." Let us all work together to exploit this problem Capitalists created through entrepreneurship so that we can further exploit the working class while fixing the problem we created. Brilliant!

[@aquariusthompson8212]

Nobody took a drink of the good crisp social distant water lol

[@KlimovArtem1]

Remove all taxes from clean energy and all related to it businesses. Raise taxes for fossil fuel-related businesses. Same for plastic and trash production - raise for traditional plastics, eliminate for biodegradable ones. Like, dramatically. The industries will do the rest, they will find a way to produce enough green energy and materials.

[@baanhemsieulay9547]

This video is a bit long but very meaningful! I have the same thoughts as them, well.

[@ozzyfromspace]

Fun fact. Atmospheric carbon is about 417 parts per million (ppm). Some people think such a tiny fraction means we're good 👍🏽 but it was actually about 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800s. So, we're actually on track to DOUBLE the amount of carbon in the atmosphere -- which, of course, isn't a good thing. The other problem is that the raw volumetric density of atmospheric carbon dioxide is so low that you can't just "scrub it" out of the air. We're at the point where whatever solutions we use to decrease the amount of CO2 in the air over time will need some mind boggling scale. But I suppose this is one of those, "No, it's not impossible. It's necessary" type situations. Godspeed, Earthlings.

[@DirtyPoul]

The future of carbon capture looks bright, but it will take time to make it economical. Until then, we have to do everything we can to reduce our CO2 emissions.

[@ozzyfromspace]

@@DirtyPoul I completely agree with you. I’d like to see architects making massive carbon capture technologies statement pieces in cities all around the world. I’d love to wake up to a view of sunny San Francisco, with a (relatively small) carbon capture tower germinating in the corner of a beautiful skyline. Structures like that might become symbols of hope of human action. Just wishful thinking I suppose. But it would be nice 😅

[@ozzyfromspace]

@George Mann I accept that you may be right. I certainly don’t have the expertise required to evaluate the practicality of carbon capture methods. But certainly at 417ppm, it’s gotta be a chemical engineering headache

[@horst4439]

regarding the airbourne fraction of carbon dioxide. Most of the stuff was gently consumed by the oceans. The sheer amount of CO2 isn't even visible when not carefully taking into account the oceans. If we suck something out of the air, the oceans will replenish this from their "reserves". And they will do this much more violent, if they are warmer than in the past ... And that's the path we are on right now.

[@DonBeardy]

No mention of nuclear energy 🤔

[@DirtyPoul]

Because it's too expensive compared to renewables and batteries + Power-to-X

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@ambikalambah8032]

more ted talks like this one!!

[@VideoGamePhilosopherShorts]

Let’s do this!

[@SubjektDelta]

Hal: yup yup *nods* yup yup

[@therugburnz]

Batteries? The water up, water down thing helps solves the problem for the grid but not individual cars. Mass transit could be run without chemical batteries. This is going to be difficult. The chemical batteries is a big FN deal. We have to mine the metals and that causes huge damage to the environment.

[@burgesssam]

As well as great words they have great great voices. I'd listen to their podcast.

[@pascalnnebedum6304]

No one is talking about the decarbonization of HEAT. Heat covers 35% of Global Emissions; electricity only covers 17% of that 35%, and fossil fuels are used for the remaining 83%. Grid electricity decarbonization only mitigates a peanut scope of the Global Emissions Reduction!

[@rodolfovieyra5122]

We just need to put the money in the hands of people like this

[@cynthiavanteylingen7922]

This year i got my own home and the first thing i did was get the company vattenfall to supply my electricity. Now when u drive to work in my volkswagen up blue motion technology indrive by the windmill that provides my energys home. That gives me hope and happyness to continue on my path to live greener. This year i cant do moe cause it costs to much money and due to covid ive got trouble paying bills on time. But next year hopefully they got covid numbers to zero and im out of money trouble and life goes back to well normal. And i can get money together to get rid of gas cooking and move to electricity cooking. Im doing a lot more for the environment but it would take an essay to tell u all. My advice to all individuals out there wanting needing to do more in their environmenr google lists online for every small and big thing u can do to help ur planet. Every little bit counts and will eventually turn into bigger moves. Just look at greta her school striking made her famous for her love for our home planet. Like they said in game of thrones. One small man can cast a large shadow. Goodluck and hopefully more people go greener green for our home.

[@HubertLR]

Ever heard about intermittency ?

[@andrewmarinelli1797]

They fail to mention the detrimental effects agriculture is having on our ecosystems. The raising of cattle and the food cattle consumes and the growth rate this sector is seeing is much of the reason for deforestation. Cattle emits large portions of methane gas and the water consumption for cattle is significantly higher than that of people. Deforestation and altering land to support the agricultural economic sector contributes roughly 30% of greenhouse gases (per NPR). We need to look at this issue holistically and not exclusively focus on the transportation and energy sectors.

[@JoyRaptor]

If solar and wind was REALLY so cheap it wouldn't need subsidies.

[@miken4591]

It now doesn’t need subsidies. Nearly all new power sources since 2018 have been renewable since they are the cheapest. It will still take time to replace all existing sources.

[@mompowersvlog]

interesting this video love it

[@justinfligstein6458]

Can anyone help me find a list of the officials John is referring to that are directly in charge of the energy transition?

[@derektynan6670]

Where are they getting this notion that solar and wind are the most cost effective forms of energy? Please elaborate on that with citations. I'm listening.

[@johnserrao9322]

Is this guy's name really John Doer? I guess he's the man for action.

[@plyguy]

Notes: - Climate change is an inequity machine, those who contributed the least are impacted the most - Climate change transcends normal time scales, when CO2e enters the atmosphere, it lasts for thousands of years - CO2e is embedded in every aspect of our industrial economy, the solution is to decarbonize the electrical grid, electrify everything plugged into it - Innovation and distribution is key, but we need good policy, accountable decision-makers, and a detailed plan with funding and staffers, not open-ended goals - To move the conversation forward, we need good data and carbon accounting, to understand real-time emissions at individual building fidelity

[@TheKoodus]

As is too often the case the thinking here of "what we need" is trying to solve our problems without modifying our excessive consumption and illogical lifestyles. What we need is a paradigm shift. If 90 percent of us dedicated some time to growing our own food, we could do better than the promise of any future technologies...

[@hiranya17]

Isn't energy storage still a big issue?

[@youdamartian9695]

🙏🏽

[@jaapscheele9677]

It is a shame that such an electrifying topic is reduced to two people talking... even a recorded podcast is more interesting as this lacks any chemistry. And that is a shame, because this is an important topic

[@aylbdrmadison1051]

Combine all of this with giving The People a good life so they are no longer operating out of fear and naturally choose to not have so many children, then we have a recipe that is bound to succeed. We *can* do these things, *if* we work as a team. I wish you all peace and prosperity. ^-^

[@lgcapital7668]

Since the Kyoto protocol, carbon emissions by the US have reduced. China and India have increased and increased dramatically. Issue must be addressed globally. Can't throw around some meaningless statistic on the number of electric buses in China vs USA without context.

[@kariminalo979]

What about flawed urban and regional policies especially in the US? Urban sprawl and lane wideing of highways have caused the formation of toxic autocentric cities and commuting habits. Combined with the ever increasing sprawl of single-family suburbs, the US has totally lost its course when it comes to integrating communities in a sustainable and equitable manner. Lack of investment in green public transport as well as green powered high-speed rail compared to other countries has put the Americas in the bottom when it comes to infrastructure, a sector that plays a huge role in carbon emissions. I think the US is in dire need for a national adoption of BREEAM assesment for all existing buildings and construction projects to make sure that all buildings are built with the intent to enhance energy efficiency and reduce carbon footprint. In addition to that a greater cooperation between higher-ed institutions across the world must be established to get a deeper insight of different strategies within fields of research crucial to de-carbonization and sustainability. Such cooperative projects have the potential to further enhance knowledge within technological advancement and policy-making.

[@carlosvicuna8211]

There is a mistake at the beginning of the video, the four sectors of the economy that generate GHG according to the IPCC are transport, buildings, industry and AFOLU (agriculture, forestry and other land use). maybe what you guys are referring to is GHG emissions generated by energy use per sources that according to IRENA are Power, Industry, Buildings and Transportation because the impact of the AFOLU sector in terms of energy use is negligible.

[@christophergruenwald5054]

Nuclear. Haven’t even watched the video yet

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@Equinox1.5]

What's your view on the role of animal agriculture (CO2 and methane)?

[@saberianamir]

We need to eliminate unecological forms of animal agriculture. Animals need to be integrated into our food system, otherwise we have to turn to mining nutrients for fertilisers which is not sustainable or ecological. We need to significantly reduce our consumption of animals and only consume animals that grow with regenerative practices. Regenerative agriculture has shown to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. I love this topic. Love to hear your thoughts.

[@simonac688.]

My grand children needs that plan...asp.

[@aaronvallejo8220]

Yes, solutions not just problems. As renewably powered electricity has plummeting over the past decade, yes I think we will continue to see massive investments increase to build renewables in all regions. Through high insulation, high efficiency, electric thermal mass floor heating and electric transportation we will see economic success while phasing out fossil fuel emissions as we strive for the goal of 100% renewably powered everything.

[@alexpotts6520]

If people spent half as much time actually engaging with what we can do about climate change rather than endlessly arguing about whose fault it is, we'd be much closer to where we need to be. It's not like, if one side won that unwinnable argument, the problem would disappear in a puff of logic.

[@aayush_789]

KZbin should 'manually' recommend such good videos that everybody needs to watch.

[@JAKempelly]

I like this

[@nooffense5956]

But China produces electricity with coal-fired electrical power plant. +I agree that is a great first step. But, I just wanted to say all countries changing their vehicles to electric cars really need to change their electrocity production method first. (Not only China) That's because consuming coal fuel produces severe environmental problems . Lots of countries have used 'coal' a lot for a long time. (China is one of the largest coal consuming countries until now.) So, we have to change the way to produce electricity first if we really care about the earth.

[@pdken3081]

That's true, they're not perfect but they are leading the way.

[@windywendi]

It's the first step towards total electrification. You can't electrify the country with gas or diesel powered vehicles running everywhere.

[@alliasbright2083]

China is leading the way in nuclear and renewables, with the most nuclear power plants open in the last decade. They are the main reason why solar is so cheap, they are also making nuclear cheaper. China plans to become fully co2-neutral by 2060, with a high share renewables and a lower share of nuclear. If China manages to do this, the worldwide co2 emissions will fall drastically. Let's all hope they can make it.

[@DirtyPoul]

"So, we have to change the way to produce electricity first if we really care about the earth." Not first. We need to do both simulatenuously because they complement each other.

[@elinope4745]

Not everyone should be concerned with climate change. Only those who benefit from society should be concerned with climate change. Those who are burdened by society should not be concerned with climate change, as it will damage society and limit its ability to restrict them.